Learning objectives are at the very core of the instructional design process, and rightly so. Without them, how would we know what content and activities to include in our courses? Unfortunat...
Published 10 years ago
Version 1.0
Blog Post
I'm beginning to change my mind about Bloom and his taxonomies. I find that Will Thalheimer's taxonomy is better http://www.willatworklearning.com/2006/06/new_taxonomy_fo.html . Our understanding of cognitive processes in learning has really shown Bloom to be lacking. I'm leaning more towards "Performance Objectives" where learners will practice or be assessed on performance in a representative task. This helps me understand what people need to do by the end of the course but it doesn't lock me into a this is purely mental or purely physical mode.
Personally, I dislike listing objectives to the learner in the course. And when I see it in courses I am taking I get bored. There is nothing wrong with giving some overall goals but even that is usually redundant, most people know the subject of the course before they start. Julie Dirksen in her book, "Design for how people Learn" makes some very good arguments about this topic.
Personally, I dislike listing objectives to the learner in the course. And when I see it in courses I am taking I get bored. There is nothing wrong with giving some overall goals but even that is usually redundant, most people know the subject of the course before they start. Julie Dirksen in her book, "Design for how people Learn" makes some very good arguments about this topic.
- Very interesting, Cary! Thanks so much for sharing.
I can see where some learners may be bored by a list of learning objectives, but ideally, if you've broken up your course into a bite-sized course you'll only have one learning objective, in which case there really isn't time to get bored.